Maureen P. Boyd

Dialogic teaching: talk in service of a dialogic stance

We consider what it means to be a dialogic teacher as characterized by Paulo Freire and Robin Alexander, and utilizing discourse analysis, we explicate how one elementary teachers talk reflects these characteristics. We provide context for and analysis of a seven-minute discussion selected as a cumulative achievement the focal nine-year-olds are capable of after a years exposure to dialogic teaching. These students explored many authors’ stereotypical treatment of orphanages as a common setting in childrens literature and considered how it impacted character development and the readers’ predisposition toward characters. We explore the role the teacher played to mobilize students’ everyday knowledge, listen attentively as students grappled with ideas, and then anchor his questions and comments in students’ contributions. Using talk in this way, he was able to negotiate school knowledge, specifically literate talk, and effectively connect it to what his students already knew. We highlight the concept of dialogic stance and argue that it is not isomorphic with the way a particular utterance is syntactically structured. It is rather a function of how patterns of talk may open up discourse space for exploration and varied opinions, and how teacher- and student decision-making about content is presented and discussed.

Relations Between Teacher Questioning and Student Talk in One Elementary ELL Classroom

The purpose of this article is to raise awareness of how the varied form and responsive and response-able use of teacher questions can invite and direct not only more student talk in classrooms but elicit specific and varied features of student talk that enhance comprehension building and provide evidence of student engagement and high-level thinking. I examine one teacher’s questioning patterns and their relationship with types of student talk and learning in an elementary English language learning (ELL) classroom. I focus on two lessons, purposefully selected for differing student talk outcomes. I present a comparative look at descriptive statistics detailing teacher questioning patterning (in terms of typology, contingency, convergence-divergence, textual, extra-textual). I then illustrate how patterns of teacher questioning influence student talk and learning across these two lessons through close discourse analysis of representative classroom talk excerpts. I show how this teacher’s questions are varied in form but consistently contingent on and responsive to students’ talk contributions, even though in one lesson students struggle to make sense of surface meaning in the focal text and in the other lesson, students easily relate to the focal text. This teacher’s willingness to listen, and wield questioning to follow and selectively support student ideas, purposes, and lines of reasoning, supports dialogic talk for thinking and learning. Student talk for thinking and learning is present, but looks different, in both lessons.

Reasoning Words as Linguistic Features of Exploratory Talk: Classroom Use and What It Can Tell Us.

Reasoning words are linguistic features associated with classroom exploratory talk as students talk-to-learn, explore ideas, and probe each others thinking. This study extends established research on use of reasoning words to a fourth- to fifth-grade literature-based English language learning context. We examined frequency and patterning of teacher and student use of reasoning words within and across two lessons purposefully selected to elucidate use of reasoning words during a close reading of a text as students grapple to make meaning and extended intertextual talk about a text that is easily accessible. Analyses and exemplifications illuminate how usage of each reasoning word functioned to introduce/link to reasoning or to prompt for reasoning. Teacher used reasoning words to mostly prompt for reasoning and student used them to introduce/link to reasoning. We found consistent use of reasoning words by teacher and students across three categories: language of possibility, reasoning links, and pressing for reasoning.

Meaningful learning in management: recombining strands of knowledge DNA through engaged dialog and generative conflict

This paper explores how meaningful learning objectives in management classes are pursued when the focus is on classroom activities and strategies that foster transformative thought, adaptive growth, and commitment from both instructors and students to achieve meaningful learning. To this end, we offer a metaphor and a context for this approach to learning. The DNA of learning metaphor details effective pedagogical practices and encourages instructors to take a more challenging and possibly transformative approach to their course design and classroom experiences.

Student Voices and Teacher Choices: Selecting Chapter Book Read-Alouds.

I n ,JSS than a minute aclassroom talk, six students referenced four chapter books that the students want Michael, their 3rd-grade teacher, to consider for the next read-aloud. They know the routine; they go to their backpacks, desks, and the library to locate a copy of the book they recommended. They have presented their case and now the teacher will read a few chapters of each nominated text and choose one. Who decides what chapter book is to be read aloud? Third-grade teacher Michael Bail (a pseudonym) reserves the right to make that choice-”at least usually.” In fact, he follows a defined process concerning read-aloud chapter book selections for his class, which does involve student input. We believe other literacy educators can learn from and adapt this process for their classrooms to enhance students’ reading and learning experiences. “Oh . . . I really like that one” and “It’s on my list of ones I need to read myself and then share in class later.’’ Such teacher responses to student-suggested texts support the notion that “engagement cannot be forced, but it canbe enticed (Barrentine, 1996, p. 38). As Michael exploits the potential of children’s literature to entertain and inform, he evokes the power of personal involvement to motivate student engagement. Why Read-alouds? Read-alouds nurture language and literacy practices required for a successful schooling experience (Beck & McKeown, 2001,2007; Heath, 1982). They motivate children to read more and nurture language expression across the curriculum (Sulzby & Teale, 2003). Readalouds not only provide content for learning, they also introduce authors and genres; model ways of reading, types of writing, and other ways of thinking; and invite personal connections. At the same time, the shared experience of a read-aloud facilitates group discussion of content and context, thus making learning more effective and enjoyable (Sipe, 2002). Experts describe reading aloud as more important than flashcards, dittos, homework, assessments, and book reports, and it is far less expensive than scripted programs, which often require substantial investments for materials and support staff (Hoffman, Roser, & Battle, 1993; Trelease, 2001). Moreover, interactive read-alouds encourage student participation and open the door to effective vocabulary instruction, while promoting both oral language development and listening comprehension (Fisher, Flood, Lapp, & Frey, 2004; Hickman, Pollard-Durodola, & Vaughn, 2004). Typically, books selected for read-alouds are beyond students’ capability at the independent level (Ariail & Albright, 2006); “if [students] stick strictly with texts that they can handle, then they’re missing out on a lot of the books and pieces that are really going to grab them and make them really excited about reading” (personal communication with Michael Bail, June 19th, 2006). But selecting the “right” chapter read-aloud is a complex decision, because the independent reading level of 3rd-graders ranges from word callers (Valencia & Buly, 2004, p. 522) just beginning with chapter books to proficient readers devouring young adult literature. For the most part, a good read-aloud meets the “above independent reading level” for some 3rd-graders; for others, it serves as an introduction to a new genre and/or author for independent reading pleasure.

Building bridges: coauthoring a class handshake, building a classroom community

ABSTRACT Collaborative social practices that people participate in to coauthor, or co-create, support, and sustain, a classroom community are challenging to research and represent because they are fluid and emergent, and interdependent and cumulative, as they develop across time and space, across experiences and relations. In this article, we take a year-long look at how a weekly whole class greeting ritual, a Class Handshake, serves as a socio-epistemic-embodied-community building practice. We provide a rich description of the dialogic what and how of the Class Handshake ritual, and articulate connections between the Class Handshake and other classroom values and practices. We explore ways this collaborative social practice enacted values and relations that anchored a dialogic teaching and learning stance in this classroom community. We find that the Class Handshake functions like a “polyphonic web,” manifesting and perpetuating a sense of “We”-ness of this classroom community of practice. This study adds to classroom literature that considers dialogic stance and dialogic teaching and learning practices across time. Importantly, this sociocultural discourse analytic study extends attention beyond procedural moves to a big picture examination of purposeful, accretive, and coherent orchestrations of collaborative practices and relations that, together and across time, build classroom community.

Trusting the local: opening up the script with response-able talk practices

Purpose The purpose of this paper is to deflate some of the pressure-orienting teachers toward following a curricular script. Design/methodology/approach The authors connect effective classroom teaching and learning practices to a dialogic instructional stance that values local resources and student perspectives and contributions. The authors argue that effective teachers have agency to make decisions about content and pacing adjustments (they call this agentive flow) and that they practice response-able talk. Response-able talk practices are responsive to what is happening in the classroom, responsibly nurture joint purposes and multiple perspectives, and cultivate longer exchanges of student exploratory talk. These talk practices are not easily scripted. Findings The authors show what these effective, local and dialogic instructional practices look like in a second-grade urban classroom. Practical implications The authors call upon every teacher to robustly find their local ways of working. Originality/value In this paper, the authors argue that harnessing the local is an essential aspect of dialogic instruction and a critical component of a dialogic instructional stance.